Assessee filed a writ petition challenging the Reserve Bank of India’s decision to return his compounding application. The application was filed after an adjudication order had already been passed against him under FEMA.
It was pertinent to note that assessee was an agriculturist and semiliterate person, not well versed with the income tax proceedings, therefore, it was the duty of AO to apprise him the correct position instead of putting an extra tax liability because of his ignorance.
Since assessee was not allowed an opportunity to present all Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) for the concerned shipping bills and produced documents before the authorities to substantiate that they were not liable to return the drawback amount.
Resolution plan for Steadfast Shipping Private Limited was approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, after finding that the plan met all requirements under Section 30(2) of the Code and was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% voting share.
Export incentives in terms of Notification No.19/2015-20 dated 17.08.2021 couldn’t be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill as merely because of a software system was introduced, it would not mean that the software would override the principles of natural justice and rights of the parties.
State could not blacklist a company after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and that the new management could not be punished for the actions of the old management.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as deceased alone could have explained the source of the deposits, and since he had died before the initiation of penalty proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect the legal heir to establish his innocence.
A waiver of the Show Cause Notice could not be done on the basis of a pre filled form and the same being used as a basis for not issuing a Show Cause Notice or not affording a personal hearing, was not permissible.
Anticipatory bail was denied to the accused involved in Rs. 425 crore GST fake billing case as there was necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the full extent of the fraudulent network and modus operandi.
While computing arm’s length price (ALP), it is required both the tested party and the comparable should have similar financial year endings for proper analysis of the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed.
